There are
violations of the RLTO in many
Chicago rentals. Every Chicago
renter's situation is worth reviewing - past and present.

We
respond to inquiries by
phone or
email without charge for initial
consultation about Chicago tenant laws. Usually we take Chicago
rental cases on a contingent basis, meaning the renter pays no
attorney fee unless they recover money. Sometimes the fee is paid
directly by the landlord. We have represented tenants in
individual cases and also in class action suits filed
against large apartment buildings and management companies. We
have also represented renters with more unusual situations like
personal injuries or diseases arising from the premises, declaratory
judgment actions to determine rights under leases, and recovery of
compensation for property stolen due partly to non-compliance with
Chicago building security codes.

Even before the Supreme Court got involved, the Illinois Court of
Appeals had affirmed that tenants were entitled to damages equal to
two-times their full security deposit just for harmless commingling, a
violation of RLTO section
080(a).
Commingling was described by the court in 1996 as simply
depositing part of a tenant's security deposit increase into the same
bank account that the landlord put rent payments in.
Plambeck v. Greystone Mgmt. & Columbia Nat'l Trust
Co., 281 Ill. App. 3d 260, 272 (1st Dist. 1996). The
Plambeck
court also decided that, even if only part of a security deposit was
commingled, the tenant was entitled to damages equal to two-times their
full security deposit.

The Court of Appeals had also held in 1993 that damages equal to
two-times their security deposit means new money, and does not include
the security deposit itself.
Solomon v. American Nat'l Bank & Trust Co.,
243 Ill. App. 3d 132, 137 (1st Dist. 1993). Tenants do not waive
their right to the double-deposit-sized damages by cashing a security
deposit refund check issued by the landlord, unless the check clearly
says it is settlement of all issues arising out of the tenancy, or under the
RLTO.

Until June 15, 2006, Chicago tenants were able sometimes to recover
damages equal to two-times their security deposit for each
individual violation of RLTO section
080(a), (b), (c), (d),
and (e). For example, many landlords covered by the
RLTO in Chicago may commingle a tenant's security deposit, fail
to give a proper receipt for the security deposit, and also fail to pay
interest. That landlord would have violated RLTO
subsections 080(a), (b), and (c).
Under RLTO section
080(f):

If the landlord or landlord's agent fails to comply with any
provision of Section 5-12-080(a)--(e), the tenant shall be
awarded damages in an amount equal to two times the security
deposit plus interest at a rate determined in accordance with
Section 5-12-081. This subsection does not preclude the tenant
from recovering other damages to which he may be entitled under
this chapter.

In the example given, especially after the
Lawrence
case in 2001, some judges would have awarded the tenant a colossal damage
award equal to six-times their security deposit, because the
landlord committed three separate violations of RLTO §
080(a)-(e).

Landlords' best, and often only defense was the short two-year statute
of limitations imposed on tenants seeking damages equal to two-times
their security deposits. SeeNamur v. Habitat Co., 294 Ill. App. 3d
1007, 1010-1011 (1st Dist. 1998);
Sternic v. Hunter Props., Inc., 344
Ill. App. 3d 915, 918-919 (1st Dist. 2003). If a landlord was
lucky, their tenants wouldn't figure out their rights until it was too
late. Websites like this are intended to alert tenants
before their rights expire.

Chicago apartment companies
were sued in class action lawsuits that recovered large sums
of money to compensate tenants (and their lawyers) for technical security deposit violations.
In response, some of the
largest and best-advised apartment management companies stopped taking security
deposits altogether. Other landlords switched to "non-refundable move-in fees"
to replace security
deposits. Still, most of
Chicago's rental housing continues to require security deposits.
Some landlords have simply done their best to handle security deposits
legally. This is a risky proposition. With the stakes so high, and the liability so strict,
Illinois lawyers are certain to find some way a landlord failed
to comply with RLTO §
080(a)-(e).

Chicago
landlords of course cannot stand the RLTO. They view the RLTO only
as a form of state-imposed wealth redistribution; an involuntary
lottery. Chicago landlords are small business owners and
investors, and they watch their bottom line closely and carefully.
Chicago landlords say the RLTO preys unfairly upon "loopholes" and "trap
doors." Chicago tenants say "landlords have all kinds of lawyer to
evict us; why not to counsel them on well-publicized local law?"
Chicago landlords have a champion in Justice Freeman of the Illinois
Supreme Court. He dissented from the majority opinion in
Lawrence.
He said:

“I do not
believe that the Chicago city council intended to punish
landlords for inadvertent mistakes and violations of the
Ordinance. I do not believe that the Chicago city council
intended to force smaller landlords out of business by imposing
"significant additional damages" upon these landlords.”

A concerted effort
has always been made by landlords to change the RLTO.
In 2002 Alderman
Bernard Stone
of the 50th Ward introduced an amendment to the
RLTO
that would limit the liability of landlords to situations where their
conduct was in bad faith. The amendment never passed. Two years later
in 2004 Alderman
Tom Tunney of
the 44th Ward sought to amend the security
deposit section. His amendment would have required tenants to mail their landlord a letter
asking for the interest. Then, only if the
landlord didn't pay interest after the tenant's letter, the tenant
became entitled to $25. Alderman Tunney's amendment would have
also exempted landlords from existing liability under the RLTO for their past
violations! This amendment never passed either. Both
amendments were opposed by
Mayor Daley's
office and the
Chicago
Department of Housing.

the payment of a security deposit is a singular event and the
RLTO does not specify double damages for "each" violation of
5-12-080.

This was the end of "stacking," as it had been known. Now, no matter
how many unique violations of RLTO §
080(a)-(e)
a landlord commits during a tenancy, the tenant cannot recover more than
one award equal to "two-times the security deposit."

Today, in 2007 and 2008, Chicago RLTO
attorneys for tenants have to be more creative. A $450 security
deposit, even doubled, isn't much to go to court over. What's
more, many landlords have successfully insulated themselves against lawsuits
under RLTO § 080 by abandoning
security deposits altogether.

Tenants' attorneys need to expand their investigation of the rental
property and the documents associated with the tenancy. If the
Krawczyk
case closed one door, it opened another. The court confirmed that
separate damage awards can still be stacked between sections of the RLTO,
just not within section 080 of the RLTO.
A tenant can still recover large damage awards plus costs and attorney
fees even without a security deposit under the Ordinance. For
example, a tenant could recover damages equal to (1) one-month's rent
for non-disclosed code violations (RLTO § 100), (2) another two-months' rent
for attempted enforcement of an illegal late fee (RLTO § 140), (3) another one-month's rent
for entry to show the rental unit to prospective renters without giving
at least two-days' advance notice (RLTO § 050), and another $100 for failure to
attach a summary of the RLTO to the lease (RLTO § 170). That's four-months' rent
plus $100 plus court costs and attorney fees. Tenants
lawyers may have to work harder, but the money is still there.

The fastest
growing population of Chicago tenants with strong RLTO cases are condo
renters. Chicago condo owners who rent out one or two condo units in Chicago are reliable
violators of the RLTO.
These condo landlords predictably ignore or misread the RLTO and commit obvious violations. They also extract
giant security deposits. A common misconception amongst Chicago
condo landlords is that, because the Illinois
Security Deposit Acts do not apply to them,
nothing does.

Other Chicago
tenants with strong RLTO cases are renting apartments and houses from landlords
who know about the Ordinance, but try to figure it
out themselves. They
print a lease
off the internet.
There are a lot of reasons why not
to do this. Chicago landlords of any
property are advised to consult a competent Illinois lawyer versed in
the RLTO, Illinois, and federal rental laws for review of their rental
plans and policies. It's cheaper than paying a tenant's lawyer to
sue them later.

It is
important for landlords to remember that, even if the tenant only
recovers $100 under
the
RLTO, the tenant's
attorney will still be awarded their "reasonable" attorney fee.
According to the Court of Appeals, the tenant's attorney is allowed to
recover a fee against the landlord that exceeds the amount awarded to
the tenant.
Pitts v. Holt, 304 Ill. App. 3d 871-875
(1st Dist. 1999). In their words:

Nor do we think
the fact that [tenant] recovered only $1,200 should
significantly limit [tenant's] attorney’s fees. Once again,
such a limitation would undermine vigorous enforcement of the
Ordinance.

This internet site is maintained by
an Illinois attorney dedicated to
getting Chicago tenants their money back fast. Even
for tenants in Chicago without security deposits,
Chicago tenants' lawyers can find ways recover damages equal to one-month's rent, two-months' rent,
or both. Or the written lease can be broken early, without
penalty. These damages and remedies can be stacked on top of double-deposit-sized awards for
security deposit violations. Tenants in Chicago still can get some
satisfaction from bad landlords.

ATTENTION: Because the Illinois General Assembly and the
various Illinois city councils may change, amend, or abolish the
law without notice, the statutes provided here are not
guaranteed to be an exact reproduction of the law at this time.
The laws provided here are for informational purposes only and
should not be relied upon before taking any action.
Please consult an attorney.

This web site is intended to supply general information to the public. Although
the information is generally accurate, it cannot be guaranteed. The nature of
Legislation is that laws change quickly, and visitors should always insure that
legal information is accurate before relying on it. The above information
applies the law of the State of Illinois and City of Chicago. The law in your
jurisdiction may be different. This information is necessarily brief and may
or may not apply to your situation. In all cases, PLEASE, consult a lawyer
before acting.

This web site is not intended to be advertising, solicitation, or legal advice.
Thus, the reader should not consider this information to be an invitation for an
attorney-client relationship, should not rely on information provided herein,
and should always seek the advice of competent counsel in the reader's state.